I don't care about the new style on its own, but it definitely extends the time it takes to get a video out, and I think that online videos have a pretty low saturation point for enjoyment. What I mean is that her new videos are pretty much objectively of a higher quality than the old ones, but in practice the old ones were already about as entertaining as the medium can be. It's feature creep in video form.

Ya I agree with that, I sometimes even find myself skipping over some of the skits. I think they made for an interesting alternative to transition slides before, kind of a way to break up the video into "chapters", with a bit of an easy laugh between them, but they're really getting quite long and involved now, and all the characters are just not that funny to me. That said, it's 100% true that the production quality and effort going into each video has gone up a lot, but I don't think that's always a good thing.

The characters are also meant to be a device for Socratic dialogue. So while they are meant to be entertaining, if there is a point where they are not funny, it is because they have another job to do besides jokes.

It's just irony my dude, have you got a problem with guillotine jokes and eat the rich jokes too? Maybe 3 people on this sub are going to take issue with condemning shit like the Holodomor and the purges.

It's funny how Nietzsche is seldom credited for Nazi atrocities, yet Goebbels and co idolized him. It's almost like there's never a logic or consistency when it comes to ascribing historical events to influential thinkers.

Those who said, "too many", predictably, overestimated the percentage of visible minorities by significantly more than the other groups.

This really doesn't mean anything at all. You can't draw any conclusions based on the Canada data.

If you say you 20% of the people you see and interact with are minorities, and I say 10% of the people I see and interact with are minorities... which one of us is right?

Obviously we could both be right, and if the actual number of minorities in the city is 15%, we'd both have the "wrong" answers. There are an extreme amount of confounding variables that could explain the data: Which part of the city you live in, what kind of a job you're working, your age, and so on.

There's also of course the admittedly imperfect "common sense" evidence we're all familiar with, that it tends to be the populations of large cities that are the most diverse and the least prejudiced against minority groups, while those populations in less dense areas like towns and rural areas are the least diverse and the most prejudiced

Who's to say you don't have cause and effect reversed here? Isn't it just as likely that large cities have universities and attract young people, etc. causing them to become more liberal, which in turn causes minorities to go there instead of living out in the cornfields with Bubba? Besides, is this even true for the U.S.? What about southerners having worse opinions of black people, yet the most exposure (on a blacks per capita basis)?

If you look at the wording of the question, they didn't ask, "How many visible minorities do you interact with in your community?", they asked, "Of those who live in Canada...", and then for the second question, "What proportion of Canadians...". So they were asking people their opinions on the total minority population in all of Canada.

As for the second question, as I admitted, the "common sense" source is imperfect, which is why I only gave it a passing mention at the end. If you want to actually look at the research on the topic, you'll have to see the cited studies, I'm not an expert on this topic, but Miles Hewstone is.

We don't disagree on your evidence against Destiny's concession. However, we disagree on what the point of Destiny was actually conceding to. Let me try this another way. How racist are people against green people? None? Why? There are none to be racist against. Destiny was addressing a reductionist view point with equally reductionist counter point. For the purposes of the conversation, it was a fine statement. I don't think Destiny disagrees with your OP.

Maybe that's the point he imagined he himself was making, but that definitely wasn't the point the ethnostate dude was making when he said, "diversity increases the amount of racism in any place that it's practiced", so I still think it's important to have this evidence handy to counter that point, which is still untrue.

You see, you are saying that their problem is being poor. Your main remedy is to broaden the social safety net. The "food stamp" Bernie bros are unwilling to focus on calling out racism and sexism specifically.

No, the real solution is to walk up to every poor black person and tell them: "Hello Mr. POC, you are the victim of white supremacy and I am one of the whites who has it in them to recognize this. I have a ton of awareness to offer, but no handouts you bum."

That's not counting any of his other policies either. Blacks, hispanics, and women are also over-represented among those without medical insurance when compared to whites and men, respectively, which Medicare for all would have put an end to.

I agree that he does talk about 2016 and Clinton too much, but his type of content is great for slowly moving people leftwards. There are a lot of people out there who have good impulses but are naive when it comes to the flaws of the Democratic party, NYT, Amazon, MSNBC, Russiagate, etc, and people like Jimmy Dore are great for starting to open those people up to critiques of the Democrats and centrist liberals without scaring them off by talking explicitly about the flaws of capitalism and the necessity of full communism before they're even ready to accept that the Democrats are not a real left-wing party. Once they've accepted that people like Jimmy Dore have good points, they will be more open to further-left ideas, like The Majority Report and that socialist guy they've got on there, then maybe they can look into the DSA, etc.

Almost everyone starts off as some flavour of liberal because that's how society teaches people to think, and almost none of us went straight from liberal to full on pinko communist. It's a gradual process of hearing critiques that fit within your own personal Overton window (left-wing compared to what you believe, but not too crazy), and then moving further left as a result, then hearing more critiques, and so on.

So people like Jimmy Dore, Kyle Kulinski, David Pakman, etc, are needed to start moving people leftwards, and speaking to those liberals who are still too far right to entertain talk of socialism.

Good points. I discovered Jimmy Dore after already being involved in socialist movements so I find him severely lacking in analysis, but if I were someone first getting into leftist politics, I might learn a lot more from him. He is right about the Dems and MSNBC being shit, but I wish he went a little deeper than just ranting about how he is personally upset that Chris Hayes was kind of mean to Susan Sarandon. I think Kyle Kulinski and David Pakman are both a lot smarter.

Ya but I think there's only so much space for that kind of analysis. I imagine there's definitely a lot of cross over between Jimmy Dore and Kyle Kulinski and David Pakman's subscribers, but there are some people who just want to hear someone tell it like it is and getting mad as hell about how shitty things are, to make them feel like they're not crazy and they're not alone. I think it's good to have a wide variety of options available on the left-of-center to cater to the people who are ready for that kind of content (constructive vs polemical, serious vs unserious, far left vs left of center, etc). Sometimes you just want an easy time and to listen to someone speak with passion and get mad, even if you also appreciate the more serious analysis of other leftist channels. I mean, if we're being honest, Chapo is a lot closer in tone to Jimmy Dore than it is to Richard Wolff.

He also did a "prank" (proven to be staged with paid actors) where he put Trump stickers on his car then pretended a bunch of black guys came and smashed the windows, and another "prank" where he said "All Lives Matter" to "random" black guys, causing them to go crazy with rage and beat him up.

oh ive noticed this on M-L twitter recently, and i don't get it. why do they keep saying "stalinism isn't a thing"? it obviously refers to stalin's specific political ideas and choices as distinct from both lenin and khrushchev

since they've started doing this i've been strongly reminded of the dipshit neoliberals who say "neoliberalism isn't a thing, no-one can define it"

They're tired of getting called Stalinists, because that attaches their praise of the USSR to all the shitty things Stalin did, they'd much rather you have to attack the more easily defensible position of general Marxism.

A communist society is characterized by common ownership of the means of production with free access to the articles of consumption and is classless and stateless, implying the end of the exploitation of labour.

It's literally in the first paragraph of the fucking wikipedia page for communism. How does it not make people uncomfortable to know so little about something yet still have such strong opinions on it?

They've had actual leftists on like Noam Chomsky and Slavoj Zizek, but then they've also had on people like Charles Murray and Sam Harris. Basically, they're actually doing what people like Dave Rubin pretend to do, hosting people from a wide variety of political orientations to talk about their ideas, and there's not the faux-neutral "interviewer", just the speaker. Whether or not they're good or bad depends on your opinion on the Marketplace of Ideas, I guess.

I used to watch them, but too many of their videos are just super boring and banal, and the few that are worth watching tend to get shared in other places I follow anyway.

Little known fact, Bill Gates writes every line of Windows and associated Microsoft code, and builds every single X-Box and Microsoft Surface from scratch, inside of his Microsoft Time Dilation Chamber™, and as such deserves to push his personal ideas about education and development on poor American communities as well as the whole of Africa.

Smh at these damn commies who don't understand the value of hard work.

Nothing's wrong with F-150's, but there's definitely a lot of dudes out there that spent way too much on a utility truck that they just drive to and from their office job because they wanted to feel manly.

This seems like a good place to ask, but after listening to all this raving about Kanye lately (I even went and listened to that episode of And Introducing with Felix), I feel really stupid. Am I a music-moron for not understanding why everyone thinks he's a genius? Or is it all just music industry insider baseball?

EDIT: Thanks for all the suggestions everyone, seems to be a consensus that he's just really good at production, and really creative, which would explain why I don't have an appreciation for his importance. I don't know enough about the technical side of music, the recent history of music and fashion and the rap scene, or about enough different artists to understand what makes him special, I guess. I will listen to all these songs though for sure